Posted on 10/26/2009 4:37:49 AM PDT by Cardhu
The US has every characteristic of a failed state.
The US government's current operating budget is dependent on foreign financing and money creation.
Too politically weak to be able to advance its interests through diplomacy, the US relies on terrorism and military aggression.
Costs are out of control, and priorities are skewed in the interests of rich organized interest groups at the expense of the vast majority of citizens. For example, war at all cost, which enriches the armaments industry, the officer corps and the financial firms that handle the war's financing, takes precedence over the needs of American citizens. There is no money to provide the uninsured with health care, but Pentagon officials have told the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in the House that every gallon of gasoline delivered to US troops in Afghanistan costs American taxpayers $400.
"It is a number that we were not aware of and it is worrisome," said Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the subcommittee.
According to reports, the US Marines in Afghanistan use 800,000 gallons of gasoline per day. At $400 per gallon, that comes to a $320,000,000 daily fuel bill for the Marines alone. Only a country totally out of control would squander resources in this way.
While the US government squanders $400 per gallon of gasoline in order to kill women and children in Afghanistan, many millions of Americans have lost their jobs and their homes and are experiencing the kind of misery that is the daily life of poor third world peoples. Americans are living in their cars and in public parks. America's cities, towns, and states are suffering from the costs of economic dislocations and the reduction in tax revenues from the economy's decline. Yet, Obama has sent more troops to Afghanistan, a country half way around the world that is not a threat to America.
It costs $750,000 per year for each soldier we have in Afghanistan. The soldiers, who are at risk of life and limb, are paid a pittance, but all of the privatized services to the military are rolling in excess profits. One of the great frauds perpetuated on the American people was the privatization of services that the US military traditionally performed for itself. "Our" elected leaders could not resist any opportunity to create at taxpayers' expense private wealth that could be recycled to politicians in campaign contributions.
Republicans and Democrats on the take from the private insurance companies maintain that the US cannot afford to provide Americans with health care and that cuts must be made even in Social Security and Medicare. So how can the US afford bankrupting wars, much less totally pointless wars that serve no American interest?
The enormous scale of foreign borrowing and money creation necessary to finance Washington's wars are sending the dollar to historic lows. The dollar has even experienced large declines relative to currencies of third world countries such as Botswana and Brazil. The decline in the dollar's value reduces the purchasing power of Americans' already declining incomes.
Despite the lowest level of housing starts in 64 years, the US housing market is flooded with unsold homes, and financial institutions have a huge and rising inventory of foreclosed homes not yet on the market.
Industrial production has collapsed to the level of 1999, wiping out a decade of growth in industrial output.
The enormous bank reserves created by the Federal Reserve are not finding their way into the economy. Instead, the banks are hoarding the reserves as insurance against the fraudulent derivatives that they purchased from the gangster Wall Street investment banks.
The regulatory agencies have been corrupted by private interests. Frontline reports that Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, and Larry Summers blocked Brooksley Born, the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from regulating derivatives. President Obama rewarded Larry Summers for his idiocy by appointing him Director of the National Economic Council. What this means is that profits for Wall Street will continue to be leeched from the diminishing blood supply of the American economy.
An unmistakable sign of third world despotism is a police force that sees the pubic as the enemy. Thanks to the federal government, our local police forces are now militarized and imbued with hostile attitudes toward the public. SWAT teams have proliferated, and even small towns now have police forces with the firepower of US Special Forces. Summons are increasingly delivered by SWAT teams that tyrannize citizens with broken down doors, a $400 or $500 repair born by the tyrannized resident. Recently a mayor and his family were the recipients of incompetence by the town's local SWAT team, which mistakenly wrecked the mayor's home, terrorized his family, and killed the family's two friendly Labrador dogs.
If a town's mayor can be treated in this way, what do you think is the fate of the poor white or black? Or the idealistic student who protests his government's inhumanity?
In any failed state, the greatest threat to the population comes from the government and the police. That is certainly the situation today in the USA. Americans have no greater enemy than their own government. Washington is controlled by interest groups that enrich themselves at the expense of the American people.
The one percent that comprise the superrich are laughing as they say, "let them eat cake."
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-gas-another-cost-of-war-in-afghanistan-
Two things that jump right out and diminish this story for me:
The US relies on terrorism? The author doesn’t explain.
The Officer Corps is enriching itself on the war? Again, the author doesn’t explain. As a former member of that officer corps I take exception to this comment. The implication is that the leadership in the military is deeply corrupted.
Since the US military no longer has any gasoline-fueled vehicles, why are we sending gasoline to A-stan? Fact-impaired report, IMO.
"While the US government squanders $400 per gallon of gasoline in order to kill women and children in Afghanistan, many millions of Americans have lost their jobs and their homes and are experiencing the kind of misery that is the daily life of poor third world peoples."
How about you and the writer kiss my ass.
btw....your math works out to $120billion/year....on gasoline in Afghanistan? Please...
Oh, you’re from Spain.....that explains things.
Perhaps that includes AV-gas for the aircraft
I agree, he certainly does not explain that comment
“The Officer Corps is enriching itself on the war? Again, the author doesn’t explain. As a former member of that officer corps I take exception to this comment. The implication is that the leadership in the military is deeply corrupted.”
The writer appears to be more to the left than the right. He sees the war in Afghanistan as American “terrorism”, and of course our professional, all-volunteer military as a bunch of mercenaries. I certainly disagree with that assessment, but the article is interesting in that it shows how unpopular many of 0’s policies are with the Left. It’s also very sad if true if we’re footing the bill for $400/gal gasoline in one of the richest petroleum production areas in the world.
Another thing he missed from his leftist perspective is that the 2nd Amendment will save America from despotism. All the of the military and police combined don’t come close to the numbers of armed regular Americans. Further, many military and police will switch sides early in the conflict. See the “Oathkeepers”.
By the way, thank you for your service!
That was the line that caught my attention.
Hey, don't kill the messenger just cuz you don't like the message!
Oh wait. The author is yet another foreigner with a not-so-subtle dig on American foreign policy, and America overall.
Yeah, I see the officers of our military enriching themselves due to the war. Not.
Where on Earth did you find this Liberal Propaganda POS?
It is chock full of Liberal talking points, including the BS about our troops still killing innocent women and children in Afghanistan. At the cost of $400 dollars per gallon gas, while Americans are living in their cars, out of work and starving, etc,,, (And this Liberal genius is unaware that our military mostly uses Diesel in all their vehicles instead of gas.) And I suspect that the cost figures are beyond honest or truthful.
You should have posted a BARF tag, or either you had better disclaim the content of this CRAP/BS article real fast, because it certainly does not belong fowling the respectable articles found regularly on this forum!
When someone posts unsubstantiated crap with a massive anti-US slant, they ask for it.
This is one of the few things that gives me hope for a post-Civil War II America. A casual conservative observer would conclude that the forces arrayed against us are omnipresent and all-powereful, but when you peel back the onion skin layers, it's really just the super-elite at the top (of business and gov't) that are against America and American values. Most everyone elso will default to our side when they are made aware of the dishonesty and evil of the left.
Our country has indeed been stolen from us, but we have the means to take it back.
Roberts opposed the Iraq War and writes frequently on the subject. On May 18, 2005, in response to the publication of the "Downing Street memo," Roberts wrote an article calling for Bush's impeachment for lying to Congress about the case for war.
Roberts was also a critic of a potential Bush administration attack on Iran. In an August 15, 2005 article, he states "Bush...dismisses all facts and assurances and is willing to attack Iran based on nothing but Israel's paranoia."
Although his criticisms of Bush often seem to align him with the political left, Roberts continues to praise Ronald Reagan and to endorse many of Reagan's policies, arguing that "true conservatives" were the "first victims" of the neoconized Bush administration.[2] He has said that many supporters of George W. Bush "are brownshirts with the same low intelligence and morals as Hitler's enthusiastic supporters."
I'm sick and tired of all this ‘blame America’ shit.
“I agree, he certainly does not explain that comment”
Which is typical of articles like this. They either believe the “facts” they cite to be true and universally understood or they are relying on their readers to be uncritical and totally accepting. You can see that Freepers have taken this article apart in about a half dozen different ways inside of 5 minutes. If only all readers had as critical an eye.
Fruit flies on FreeRepublic, wow!
No US aircraft uses aviation gasoline. JP-5 is the preferred fuel, IIRC. (Think very high grade kerosene, like jet fuel.) Open to correction by a more knowledgeable FReeper...
I'm sick and tired of all this ‘blame America’ shit.
I am starting to think the same thing, and dittos for that last part.
The author apparently has read too many W.E.B Griffin books where the officers all have stables of polo ponies and expansive estates, a la Patton.
LOL. I get a kick out of Griffins books but it’s sooo transparent that he’s putting his personal desires into print.
WOW, what mental defective wrote that article? Whoever did has some real problems.
The underlying lesson here is; “Stay in school, cause a mind is a terrible thing to waste!”
The super rich are mostly liberals. They got theirs, they want to make sure no one else joins them.
Here’s the complete text of the article regarding the cost of fuel (not gas, but fuel as cited in this article). Since it is mentioned prominently in the article I thought I might as well put it up here for everyone to read.
$400 per gallon gas to drive debate over cost of war in Afghanistan
By Roxana Tiron - 10/15/09 08:34 PM ET
The Pentagon pays an average of $400 to put a gallon of fuel into a combat vehicle or aircraft in Afghanistan.
The statistic is likely to play into the escalating debate in Congress over the cost of a war that entered its ninth year last week.
Pentagon officials have told the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee a gallon of fuel costs the military about $400 by the time it arrives in the remote locations in Afghanistan where U.S. troops operate.
“It is a number that we were not aware of and it is worrisome,” Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Defense panel, said in an interview with The Hill. “When I heard that figure from the Defense Department, we started looking into it.”
The Pentagon comptroller’s office provided the fuel statistic to the committee staff when it was asked for a breakdown of why every 1,000 troops deployed to Afghanistan costs $1 billion. The Obama administration uses this estimate in calculating the cost of sending more troops to Afghanistan.
The Obama administration is engaged in an internal debate over its future strategy in Afghanistan. Part of this debate concerns whether to increase the number of U.S. troops in that country.
The top U.S. general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, reportedly has requested that about 40,000 additional troops be sent.
Democrats in Congress are divided over whether to send more combat troops to stabilize Afghanistan in the face of waning public support for the war.
Any additional troops and operations likely will have to be paid for through a supplemental spending bill next year, something Murtha has said he already anticipates.
Afghanistan — with its lack of infrastructure, challenging geography and increased roadside bomb attacks — is a logistical nightmare for the U.S. military, according to congressional sources, and it is expensive to transport fuel and other supplies.
A landlocked country, Afghanistan has no seaports and a shortage of airports and navigable roads. The nearest port is in Karachi, Pakistan, where fuel for U.S. troops is shipped.
From there, commercial trucks transport the fuel through Pakistan and Afghanistan, sometimes changing carriers. Fuel is then transferred to storage locations in Afghanistan for movement within the country. Military transport is used to distribute fuel to forward operating bases. For many remote locations, this means fuel supplies must be provided by air.
One of the most expensive ways to supply fuel is by transporting it in bladders carried by helicopter; the amount that can be flown at one time can barely satisfy the need for fuel.
The cheapest way to transport fuel is usually by ship. Other reasonable methods to provide fuel are by rail and pipeline. The prices go up exponentially when aircraft are used, according to congressional sources.
The $400 per gallon reflects what in Pentagon parlance is known as the “fully burdened cost of fuel.”
“The fully burdened cost of fuel is a recognition that there are a lot of other factors that come into play,” said Mark Iden, the deputy director of operations at the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), which provides fuel and energy to all U.S. military services worldwide.
The DESC provides one gallon of JP8 fuel, which is used for both aircraft and ground vehicles, at a standard price of $2.78, said Iden.
The Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James Conway, told a Navy Energy Forum this week that transporting fuel miles into Afghanistan and Iraq along risky and dangerous routes can raise the cost of a $1.04 gallon up to $400, according to Aviation Week which covered the forum.
“These are fairly major problems for us,” Conway said, according to the publication.
The fully burdened cost of fuel accounts for the cost of transporting it to where it is needed, said Kevin Geiss, program director for energy security in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment.
And moving fuel by convoy or even airlift is expensive, according to the Army news release from July 16, which quoted Geiss. In some places, Geiss said, analysts have estimated the fully burdened cost of fuel might even be as high as $1,000 per gallon.
Energy consumed by a combat vehicle may not even be for actual mobility of the vehicle, Geiss said, but instead to run the systems onboard the vehicle, including the communications equipment and the cooling systems to protect the electronics onboard.
Some 8o percent of U.S. military casualties in Afghanistan are due to improvised explosive devices, many of which are placed in the path of supply convoys — making it even more imperative to use aircraft for transportation.
According to a Government Accountability Office report published earlier this year, 44 trucks and 220,000 gallons of fuel were lost due to attacks or other events while delivering fuel to Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan in June 2008 alone.
High fuel demand, coupled with the volatility of fuel prices, also have significant implications for the Department of Defense’s operating costs, the GAO said. The fully burdened cost of fuel — that is, the total ownership cost of buying, moving and protecting fuel in systems during combat — has been reported to be many times higher than the price of a gallon of fuel itself, according to the report.
The Marines in Afghanistan, for example, reportedly run through some 800,000 gallons of fuel a day. That reflects the logistical challenges of running the counterinsurgency operations but also the need for fuel during the extreme weather conditions in Afghanistan — hot summers and freezing winters.
With the military boosting the number of the all-terrain-mine resistant ambush-protected vehicles (M-ATVs) in Afghanistan meant to survive roadside bombs, the fuel consumption will likely rise even higher, since those vehicles are considered gas-guzzlers.
The Pentagon comptroller’s office did not return requests for comment by press time.
I believe Paul Craig Robert used to be a conservative. At least, he wrote in conservative outlets, just like Arianna Huffington. I still remember those time...
That equals $116.8 billion per year, for U.S. Marine gasoline alone? That figure exceeds the the entire Department of Defense procurement budget of $104 billion in 2009, which is the budget for all supplies, including fuel, food, clothing, medical, dental, computers, forms, janitorial, etc.. The entire operations and maintenance budget is only $179 billion. The author is claiming the gasoline budget for the marines alone is over 1/3 of the combined operations, maintenance and supply budget. That is ridiculous.
The author is correct in this statement: "The regulatory agencies have been corrupted by private interests. Frontline reports that Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, and Larry Summers blocked Brooksley Born, the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from regulating derivatives. President Obama rewarded Larry Summers for his idiocy by appointing him Director of the National Economic Council. What this means is that profits for Wall Street will continue to be leeched from the diminishing blood supply of the American economy."
Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers were three of the most powerful leftists in government at that time, and were merely protecting their leftwing buddies who control Wall Street.
You may be surprised to learn that Wall Street is not controlled by Republicans. But most Americans know that Wall Street is dominated by the left, including Robert Rubin and Citigroup, which has the American taxpayer on the hook for up to $306 billion dollars (see: this article).
What would this foreigner know - I thought he was just like you - as he was educated in Virginia and Georgia was an editor and contributor to the Wall Street Journal, served under Ronald Regan.
During 1981-82 he served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy. President Reagan and Treasury Secretary Regan credited him with a major role in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and he was awarded the Treasury Department’s Meritorious Service Award for "his outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy." From 1975 to 1978, Dr. Roberts served on the congressional staff where he drafted the Kemp-Roth bill and played a leading role in developing bipartisan support for a supply-side economic policy.
How would I know he was a liberal, communist punk?
BS about our troops still killing innocent women and children in Afghanistan
I believe he got that from one of your own Generals in charge of Afghanistan at the time who kicked the Marines out of Afghanistan for doing just that.
Here is a link from that Liberal outfit the Marine Corp Times.
"You should have posted a BARF tag, or either you had better disclaim the content of this CRAP/BS article real fast, because it certainly does not belong fowling the respectable articles found regularly on this forum!"
I did not realize that anyone would think that the readers of a Political Forum would need guidance as to how to react to anything they could read.
Only respectable articles allowed?
Live and learn I suppose.
PSYCHO-FREEP! What a strange name
To earn your salt, was a phrase from the Roman Legionnaires. Marching about in the mediterranean sun caused a lot of sweating and salt was very desirous for muscle cramps.
Then came forage for horses, always a issue.
Navy’s used to have coal depots all over ports all over the world to be able to move the coal ships, ditto but not as much when they went to oil.
At the start of WWII in the pacific, the Japanese had basically only the oil that they had stored, and we knew that. One of the fundamental tactics of the US Navy in the Pacific was to make the Japanese steam around as much as possible and burn up their oil stocks. Towards the end of the war, a few of the last great Japanese Battleships left port with only enough fuel to get out to the US Fleet.
Naturally in Europe, destruction of Hitlers oil storage, transportation and production was a major goal.
Anyways, certainly not for the average American taxpayer, but I bet in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, our (?) war is a profitable enterprise, and out side the most likely usual killing rates in those countries, the spending of our military has been huge business, and economic boom time.
They’ll all miss us we we, or at least our cash, are gone.
This site give an idea of where he is coming from. He's no lefty.
By reading what he wrote before posting the article.
By doing a little research to see what his perspective is on this subject.
By doing a little analysis yourself when he states outrageous numbers.
By looking closer at the link you posted.
By doing some homework
By using some common sense and logic.
Ridiculous. it certainly is but you have to remember that the cost of the wars are not included in the budget for the Services.
>>>During 1981-82 [Roberts] served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy. President Reagan and Treasury Secretary Regan credited him with a major role in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and he was awarded the Treasury Department’s Meritorious Service Award for “his outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy.”<<<
And Roberts should have stayed awake during his college math and logic courses. When a Marine Corps general tells congress that the fully burdened cost of fuel into remote regions of Afghanistan and Iraq can reach $400/gallon, the general does not mean that all fuel transported into the two countries costs $400/gal—only the fuel targeted for remote regions. If Roberts had fully evaluated the costs, instead of jumping to biased, wild-eyed conclusions, he would have realized that by his illogic the cost of fuel into Afghanistan alone would have exceeded the entire DOD procurement budget for 2009—the procurement budget for troops and their equipment world-wide!
This was a propaganda hit-piece on the U.S. Military, whether Roberts intended it that way, or not.
>>>...you have to remember that the cost of the wars are not included in the budget for the Services.<<<
You are correct. The 2009 figures I quoted did not include the total cost of operations, maitenance and supplies in Iraq and Afghanistan, which came to $135.8 billion. That makes Roberts statement even more ridiculous.
The "author" - Paul Craig Roberts - often doesn't.
While "facts" in his "writings" don't necessarily come from Uranus, they they often come from his.
And so it goes. There’s no money for California, or for Americans’ health care, or for the several million Americans who have lost their homes and are homeless, because Israel needs it. Israel need the Americans’ taxpayers money to that it can create even more enemies, and, therefore, need more American money to spend with the American armament industries to oppress more Palestinians and to make more enemies, requiring more American money to protect Israel from its folly and its evil. (Counterpunch July 1, 2009).
And also, this:
What the U.S. needs is a single-payer not-for-profit health system that pays doctors and nurses sufficiently that they will undertake the arduous training and accept the stress and risks of dealing with illness and diseases. (Chronicles Magazine, Sept 16, 2009).
>>>”There’s no money for California, or for Americans’ health care, or for the several million Americans who have lost their homes and are homeless, because Israel needs it.”<<<
>>>”What the U.S. needs is a single-payer not-for-profit health system that pays doctors and nurses sufficiently that they will undertake the arduous training and accept the stress and risks of dealing with illness and diseases.”<<<
Wow! Roberts has indeed turned into a big-government, anti-semitic leftwing idiot.
I completely agree with your sentiments, but first we need to get rid of the Green Cult politicians and become energy independent.
Oh, I forgot! That will never work because it might take 10 years and that’s longer than the election cycle. It would also put thousands or perhaps even millions of Americans to work and they might be less beholden to big government programs. Dems and RINOs don’t want that!
Ironically the pre-recession deficit was almost equal to the amount we spent on foreign oil, but only Sarah Palin seemed to notice.
Some of the things we stand to gain from energy independence are lower and more stable energy prices, more jobs, less financial support for terrorists, less deficit spending, and less global pollution. No wonder the MSM is afraid of Sarah Palin.
Words fail me ...
"Squanders"????
"Kill women and children"????
I wonder: Does this asshat spit on returning veterans?
He should ... it would be more honest, and at least show the courage of his convictions.
It would also give decent civilians who witness the event an opportunity to punch his lights out.
Many social conservatives, are for economic central planning. You know, for the children.
So, they pretty much accept the necessary powers required to force masses to do anything, it’s just that they disagree with the left on what goals. But basically, they want the whip hand, just like the left. Both of them say that what they want for the masses is so good, so self evident, that it must be done by force, because the masses that build aircraft, computers, run everything, go out to sea in the winter to get fish, and every hard, noble, occupations....are too stupid.
There is no disagreement from me about this. Just like there are many economic conservatives are pro-abortion or at least indifference on gay marriage issue. That's why I wonder how long this two big coalitions in the form of Republican and Democratic Parties can last.
But, when the same General continues… “And moving fuel by convoy or even airlift is expensive, according to the Army news release from July 16, which quoted Geiss. In some places, analysts have estimated the fully burdened cost of fuel might even be as high Geiss said as $1,000 per gallon.”
The $400 a gallon does seems to denote an average.
Considering the loss of 44 trucks and 220,000 gallons of fuel at $400 a gallon delivering fuel only to Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan, (not a particularly remote region,) in the month of June 2008 alone. The cost of supplying fuel can easily become exorbitant.
No military aircraft “that I am aware of” use av-gas. The military uses JP-4, and JP-5 mostly, which equates to high grade diesel.
There's an easy explanation for Robert's statement: he's a crackpot.
Don’t you hear the Communist beat to the rhetoric? American terrorism? Blaming the “rich”? Promoting Socialized Medicine? Anti-war slogans? It’s station KGB again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.